Hospitals and Clinicians need not apply: Withdrawing clinically assisted nutrition and hydration in undisputed cases

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Manning, Joanna
dc.date.accessioned 2021-10-13T22:59:06Z
dc.date.available 2021-10-13T22:59:06Z
dc.date.issued 2019-4-15
dc.identifier.issn 1320-159X
dc.identifier.uri https://hdl.handle.net/2292/56962
dc.description.abstract In 2018 the United Kingdom Supreme Court decided in An NHS Trust v Y [2018] 3 WLR 751; [2018] UKSC 46 that the time had come to move on from the “good practice” requirement in Airedale NHS Trust v Bland [1993] AC 789 for hospitals and doctors to obtain court approval before life-prolonging treatment can be withheld or withdrawn from a patient in a permanent vegetative state (PVS). It held that it is no longer necessary to involve the court in every case before life-sustaining clinically assisted nutrition and hydration (CANH) can be withdrawn. Provided the provisions of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (England and Wales) and relevant professional guidance are followed, and there is no difference of medical opinion or lack of agreement from interested parties, in particular family members, with the proposed course of action, legal permission is not required. The ruling applies to PVS patients, as well as, more controversially, those in a minimally conscious state (MCS), the newer diagnosis identified post-Bland. This commentary summarises the Supreme Court’s decision, and considers some implications for England and Wales, as well as for Australia and New Zealand, where there is no recommended practice of, much less any legal requirement for hospitals to seek court approval, even in disputed cases.
dc.publisher Thomson Reuters
dc.relation.ispartofseries Journal of Law and Medicine
dc.rights Items in ResearchSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated. Previously published items are made available in accordance with the copyright policy of the publisher.
dc.rights.uri https://researchspace.auckland.ac.nz/docs/uoa-docs/rights.htm
dc.subject 11 Medical and Health Sciences
dc.subject 18 Law and Legal Studies
dc.subject 22 Philosophy and Religious Studies
dc.title Hospitals and Clinicians need not apply: Withdrawing clinically assisted nutrition and hydration in undisputed cases
dc.type Journal Article
pubs.begin-page 538
pubs.volume 26
dc.date.updated 2021-09-20T22:02:36Z
dc.rights.holder Copyright: The author en
pubs.end-page 548
dc.rights.accessrights http://purl.org/eprint/accessRights/RetrictedAccess en
pubs.subtype Article
pubs.elements-id 867245


Files in this item

Find Full text

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Share

Search ResearchSpace


Browse

Statistics